Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Something that's bothered me in recent years. Rather stupid, in fact.Throwing the opening day start to the new guy, even if he's your top starter, seems wrong. It should instead, I think, go to the dean of your rotation.Hampton in 2000. Glavine in 2003. Martinez in 2005. We lost all those games also --- giving up one, four, and three first-inning runs, respectively. Each occasion starting the season with the instant queasy feeling that we'd made a multi-year mistake.Yeah, in actuality it can be argued that none of those moves were a mistake. Yeah, such an honor could prove costly if, by the end of the season you've thrown one more start to Bobby Jones than Mike Hampton (a 20% ppoossibility), but opening the season with a tip of the hat to continuity has to be worth something.
Guest Spacemans Bong Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 You can make a pretty good argument the new guy started because he was the best starter on the team. I'd be shocked if Pedro didn't start opening day in '06.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Pretty good argument? It's absolutely clear that's why such players got their assignments. They were assumed to be the team's best starters.
Zvon Old-Timey Member Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Edgy DC wrote:Something that's bothered me in recent years. Rather stupid, in fact.Throwing the opening day start to the new guy, even if he's your top starter, seems wrong. It should instead, I think, go to the dean of your rotation.Hampton in 2000. Glavine in 2003. Martinez in 2005. We lost all those games also --- giving up one, four, and three first-inning runs, respectively. Each occasion starting the season with the instant queasy feeling that we'd made a multi-year mistake.Yeah, in actuality it can be argued that none of those moves were a mistake. Yeah, such an honor could prove costly if, by the end of the season you've thrown one more start to Bobby Jones than Mike Hampton (a 20% ppoossibility), but opening the season with a tip of the hat to continuity has to be worth something.What are you trying to say?That throwing the opening day start to a newly aquired ace is wrong? In any case, Id only be concerned with the home opener.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Wrong? Absolutely not. Not quite appealing to my taste, rather.Opening day is, in addition to being a game, a relaunching of a tradition, and it's nice when it's initiated by a guy who has been a part of that tradition.But, yeah, the home opener --- for teams that open on the road --- can also serve that purpose.
Guest ScarletKnight41 Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I have to disagree with your premise. A manager's job is to try to win as many games as he can. Winning has to supercede sentiment.If it's a close call, give the start to the veteran presence, by all means. But if the young whippersnapper is truly an ace, let the fans see the star of the future in action on opening day.
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 Well, I'm talking about what's nice. I understand it's not always necessarily as competive a move as there can be.On the other hand, "Tom Glavine, Future Ace" hasn't been said much in Met annals.
Zach Thornton Syracuse Mets - AAA LHP On Sunday, the southpaw tossed five shutout innings as the bulk pitcher. He gave up 2 hits, walked 2 and had 5 strikeouts. Explore Zach Thornton News >
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.